On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 17:17 +0000, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 11:40 -0500, Alan Conway wrote:
> > ...
> > Agreed - but why would we impose that on the user? What additional
> > flexibility would they gain?
>
> I guess what I'm really saying is that internally you have to do it with
> an absolute time, so you might as well expose that to the user as well
> in case that's how they want to cast their code, so as per my second
> message we should supply *both* options.
>
> For example if you want to use these timeouts to keep strict
> time/frequency constraints (and our users might as far as we know) it's
> much easier to do it with an absolute time API than a relative one.
>
That makes sense. You've just given me twice as much API to write :)
